Thoughts On Chattopadhyay’s Legacy, The Religious Roots Of The First War Of Independence & The Discourse Around “Civic Nationalism”
You Can Choose Not To Subscribe To It, But Watering Down The Origins & Intellectual Foundations Of Indian Nationalism Must Be Avoided.
On Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s birth anniversary (27/05) here are a few of my thoughts around Indian nationalism and the debate on Indian nationalism in today’s day and age. Long threat ahead on Indian nationalism, attempts to water down, neo-colonial agenda and Chattopadhyay’s legacy.
There seems to be a growing tribe in India, influenced by their Euro-American masters who consider it fashionable to diss on Indian nationalism. Part of it stems from their yearning for affiliation and validation from white masters for whom nationalism ended up a beast of its own. The first question of course worth asking is- why should India with a history of its own, ups and downs of its own, problems of its own adopt a guilt trip by people who decided the best way to show their nationalism is to somehow enslave and massacre others?
Often the tirade against Indian nationalism is simultaneous with a push to accept a globalised ideological and socio-economic order where cards are held by those very neo-colonialists, and any challenge or questions to the order or their supposed moral superiority is considered heresy. Take the Eurozone. It is sold to us as a future worth emulating everywhere, where narrow nationalist tendencies have been uprooted for common good. But what has it caused? Poorer nations to become poorer, the rich becoming richer and all the cards held by few dominant powers.
The second jargon that is thrown around, admittedly a wonderful distraction from their ulterior agenda “civic nationalism”. Once again it starts by axiomatically assuming that nationalism of any other kind or origin is exclusionary, and it is the supposed magic wand solution to all kinds of narrow tribalism. A political ideology is very rarely uniform across regions even if they can be broadly classified under the same umbrella. Communism in USSR, China and Vietnam even though had a lot of common elements, once you look closer you will realise despite similar jargon the subtle differences that show up. The nationalism of India developed as a near sacrilegious concept which asked people to view common history & civilizational values which cut across all barriers. Even the most fervent of its proponents never took any tangible action to transform it into a neo-colonial tool.
Therefore all criticism- whether calling it “masochistic”, xenophobic or tying it to the sinister colonial agendas that ironically Indian nationalism fought against is simply another attempt at guilt-tripping by drawing vague remote associations. The motivation for the same is the same- to bully people into a false guilt trip. Those drumming up support for it are doing so are simply carrying out the neo-colonial agenda of erasing the unique history. Indian nationalism is what it is. You can either subscribe or let it go, but attempts to mould it to what it’s not by backdated appropriation is shameful.
Indian nationalism has evolved the way it has. If it causes heartburn it’s the individual’s problem. Attempts to appropriate and draw divides by throwing around terms like “feminine” vs “masochistic”, “civic” vs “xenophobic”, “exclusionary” vs “inclusionary” is plain anti-intellectual and condescending. In fact, why assume that feminine means submission? A few months ago the French stuck to their historical legacy of liberty and secularism as it developed in the French nation. Attempts to shove woke definitions and standards of what those terms meant were thwarted. Why should France buy a form of secularism alien to it?
Coming back to Chattopadhyay and Indian nationalism. Chattopadhyay is undoubtedly the father figure who set the ball rolling on the Bengali Renaissance and Indian nationalism. Undoubtedly Indian nationalism moulded and changed organically over the 19th and early 20th century. Chattopadhyay’s work went from imagining an independent Bengal to a larger Indian nation. But one thing that remained constant from the very go was the landmass’ personification as a Mother Goddess figure. Why should it change now? Doing so is negating historical facts and committing intellectual genocide by erasing the very history, struggle and heritage of India.
In Anondomath, Chattopadhyay describes the past of the nation as “Maa Jagatdhatri”, as a powerful figure. The present was described as “Maa Kali”- agitated, boiling with rage and fury. And the future as “Maa Durga”- powerful and the slayer of the evil. If someone’s ideological or religious background doesn’t allow acceptance of Indian nationalism for what it is, let it be so. Any attempts to erode it by denying its origin, inspiration or representation must be avoided at any cost. In fact, unknown to most people, Anondomoth was inspired by what can only be called the “First War Of Independence” which ironically was waged by ascetics of Bengal against the Company forces. Between 1764 and 1805, the ascetics of Bengals waged a guerilla war from the juggles of Bengal which forced the Company forces to retreat on occasion and resulted in significant casualties. Of course, the English forces were much better prepared and the “Sanyasi Bidroho” as it is called in Bengali has successfully curbed but the guerilla tactics, secret messaging through wheat balls, unity among the citizens and the taste of a free nation was successfully instilled in the people. The very first war of Independence, albeit a battle which was known to be lost from the very go had Hindu roots!
Vande Mataram was a tribute to the Goddess personifying India. Attempts to water down are intellectual dishonesty with ulterior motives. There are nations whose nationalism perhaps won’t cause a conflict between values and of such individuals, unfortunately, India is not one of them. Indian nationalism as envisioned from the days of Chattopadhyay has always been a personification and amalgamation of India’s civilizational and Hindu roots. You can choose not to subscribe to it but attempts to induce false guilt trips and divides, a negation of history and ideological reality must not be tolerated. Let us pay our tributes to Chattopadhyay in a true way, not by watering down his intellectual legacy to please a few.
